Drooling Iguana wrote:The French surrendered during World War II because of one of the most braindead military strategies the world has ever been witness to (walls DON'T WORK as military defence in the age of aircrafts!) not because of cowardice. If they'd devoted their resources toward a workable military strategy, they could have been a major force in the war, and maybe the world wouldn't have had to listen to the Americans gloat about it for the next sixty years.

And yet the Maginot line worked perfectly and diverted the main German attack through Belgium, which was the main idea.

If they had only had the cash to extend it along the arden forest, WWII would have been fought VERY differently

I doubt it. More French infantry? Panzer Group von Kliest would just run through those like a knife through butter. The doctrines were all wrong. Thanks to an idiot called Maginot and another one to a lesser extnt Gamelin. De Gaulle has came up with the ideas of the "blitzkerg" not the Germans, De Gaulle just had no one who would listen to him.

Formerly the artist known as Captain Lennox

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me." - Sir Isaac Newton

Friend Napoleon, humanitarian issues are all well and good. The problem is that we heard very little French outrage when it was US planes and buildings that were being destroyed.[/quote]

What a load of bull. In case you didn't know, France participated in the military campaign in Afghanistan, with Mirage 2000s flying from Kyrgyzstan and Rafales off the [i]Charles De Gaulle[/i]. Very little French outrage my ass.

**Not the *whole* Afghanistan canpaign! Surely even Mr Chirac was listening when Mr Bush said that there was more than just afghanistan involved! It seems as if French outrage lasts as long as their financial interests aren't involved. No problem, so long as they admit it.

[quote]In fact, French War companies continued to sell arms to Iraq after the fact, as well as supply Saddam with intelligence.[/quote]

No basis in fact for those accusations.

**Wrong again. When western journalists started digging around in the Iraqi Intelligence ministry over two weeks ago, there was ample documentary evidence of both.

[quote]This war was started when these people and their friends attacked the US. Far from averting anything, France went to a great deal of trouble to aid my country's enemies.[/quote]

[quote]It is perfectly alright to support France in this matter, but please don't pretend that they are "peace loving" or any of that rot.[/quote]

Strawman: this is what Napoleon said:

[b]regardless of what the government's motive to oppose the war was ... I commend the french populace for opposing the war so vehemently and opposing aggression[/b][/quote][quote][/quote][quote]

Not Strawman! The French people do not oppose war and agression per se. They spent time posturing until such a time as their business interests in Iraq were threatened. This war isn't over by a long shot, and I doubt we'll see much more of La Belle France!

Oddly enough, some of your tags were correct and still didn't show up right >.< kupo

"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."

When air support was required, the French were there. Mirage 2000D aircraft alone (excluding the aircraft based on the French CVN) flew 10% of all allied missions in that war.

Surely even Mr Chirac was listening when Mr Bush said that there was more than just afghanistan involved!

Why does Chirac have to listen to bullshit? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is undisputable fact.

It seems as if French outrage lasts as long as their financial interests aren't involved. No problem, so long as they admit it.

Demonstrate the connection between Iraq and 9/11, and you'd have a point.

**Wrong again. When western journalists started digging around in the Iraqi Intelligence ministry over two weeks ago, there was ample documentary evidence of both.

Go ahead, provide this ample documentary evidence.

Not Strawman!The French people do not oppose war and agression per se. They spent time posturing until such a time as their business interests in Iraq were threatened. This war isn't over by a long shot, and I doubt we'll see much more of La Belle France!

You're right it's not- you just made it worse by insinuating that the entire French populace isn't peace loving and were just concerned about their business interests

I think you had better check your dictionary. "Undisputed facts" are stipulated, and by definition, no one disputes them. Saddam was up to his neck in Al Qaeda, offerring safe harbor if not material and intelligence help. Where you have seen this refuted escapes me. Maybe you could cite something authoritative?

While you are at it, keep your eyes open for articles dealing with the information ministry. You miss a lot.

I didn't bring in the French people as opposed to the French government. Napoleon did. I made the point that the vaunted "love of peace and hatred of agression" cited by Napoleon is somewhat lacking when French financial interests are concerned. If this is an indictment of France in general and not Mr Chirac alone, then take it up with Napoleon. He would know better than I. What I said was that Chirac is *far* from being an altruist. If the people of France are supporting Chirac on this then your implied insult stands.

You must admit that France was very gung-ho about bringing in the US in the Bosnia business even though the US has no particular interest there. May I contrast the behavior of the US here with that of France? We held steady with treaty obligations. We certainly didn't sell information and hardware to Serbia!

I agree that Chirac doesn't have to agree with Mr Bush. He doesn't have to commit France to anything he doesn't want to. The knife in the back is what irks me.

As far as the nature of US evidence goes, I guess it boils down to who you trust. If you trust Baghdad Bob when he tells you there was no evidence of WMD, and thay they never heard of Al Qaeda, then we really have no basis to argue. I don't have to read arabic or see the training camps or the mass graves to know that the whole region is rotten with terrorist groups. As you stand by Saddam, I stand by my President, and our intelligence services.

If we differ on these basic facts, all I can see is that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this...

Bosnia: Genocide. A guy we don't like ruling the place. A bona fide war criminal. Tens of thousands dead.

Iraq: Same thing. They are exhuming bodies from all around Al Basra, Al Nasariyah, and Baghdad itself. A bona fide war criminal. Tens of thousands dead.

I don't see much difference. Oh, wait!

When Bosnia was going on in Europe itself, our friends, worried about the destabilization of Europe, decided to take military action. Although the US has little stake in *who* wins in the Balkans, they back France, and others.

In Iraq, an act of war was perpetrated against New York with some three thousand dead. We asked for help from our friends to root out this threat to all of us. France, with billions of francs at stake, declines to participate. Furthermore, they secretly pass military information to Saddam concerning the disposition of American troops in the coming action.

Did I cover most of that OK?

Forgive me. I am just a provincial American with no culture. I realize that I am horribly stunted from the start, with no hope of ever appreciating French sophistication.

It looks suspiciiously as if France wants all the help in the world, while cold bloodedly running the other way when her turn comes to offer aid.

I can tell the difference just fine.

Possibly I should tell you that I am French Huguenot descent (that's Reformee). I am just a humble colonial because we had to flee for our lives after the St Bartholomew's Massacre. You people have been doing this sort of thing for centuries, and I should have expected nothing less.

genocide is a systematic state supported/run attempt to remove every member of a specific ethnicity/religion/etc

that happened in bosnia

in iraq, there was no genocide, no specific portion of the population was singled out for every one of them to be exterminated, and no attempt was ever even made to accomplish that goal. The "mass graves" are almost entirely the bodies of people who engaged in open rebellion and treason against the state in the Shiite rebellion of the early 90s. (anyone who mentions kurds is a little out of date, none of the kurd gassing attacks are what they appeared to be at first, of the two prime examples, one was shown to be a stray IRANIAN chem shell, the other has no evidence besides a few testimonies to support its existance)

Lee3 wrote:I think you had better check your dictionary. "Undisputed facts" are stipulated, and by definition, no one disputes them. Saddam was up to his neck in Al Qaeda, offerring safe harbor if not material and intelligence help. Where you have seen this refuted escapes me. Maybe you could cite something authoritative?

LOL. So you're making the claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, are you? The burden of proof is on YOU, dumbass, not me. You're the one pretending there's a link. Saddam was not 'up this neck' in a islamic fundamentalist organization that hated him.

While you are at it, keep your eyes open for articles dealing with the information ministry. You miss a lot.

You made the claim, you provide the proof. I don't have to do your research for you- all you've presented me with is a lot of unsupported claims.

I didn't bring in the French people as opposed to the French government. Napoleon did. I made the point that the vaunted "love of peace and hatred of agression" cited by Napoleon is somewhat lacking when French financial interests are concerned. If this is an indictment of France in general and not Mr Chirac alone, then take it up with Napoleon. He would know better than I. What I said was that Chirac is *far* from being an altruist. If the people of France are supporting Chirac on this then your implied insult stands.

Or, you've got it totally backwards and Chirac is acquiescign to what the French people wanted, you know, politicans tend to do that- it's called democracy.

You must admit that France was very gung-ho about bringing in the US in the Bosnia business even though the US has no particular interest there. May I contrast the behavior of the US here with that of France? We held steady with treaty obligations. We certainly didn't sell information and hardware to Serbia!

Frnace brought the US into Bosnia? That's news to me. Got proof?

I agree that Chirac doesn't have to agree with Mr Bush. He doesn't have to commit France to anything he doesn't want to. The knife in the back is what irks me.

What knife in the back?!

As far as the nature of US evidence goes, I guess it boils down to who you trust. If you trust Baghdad Bob when he tells you there was no evidence of WMD, and thay they never heard of Al Qaeda, then we really have no basis to argue.

LOL- you act like WMD has actually been found. Small problem- Bush got up in front of the nation and lied his ass off- either that, or the people giving him his information are grossly incompetent.

I don't have to read arabic or see the training camps or the mass graves to know that the whole region is rotten with terrorist groups. As you stand by Saddam, I stand by my President, and our intelligence services.

Yes, let's talk about mass graves- you know they're from 1991? When the US asked the Shia's to rebel and then left them twisting in the wind? Where was your fucking outrage then? They hate the US guts now- you don't need to go far to see the news of them asking the US to go take a flying leap and get out.

Terrorist camps? Would those be those in Northern Iraq run by anti-Saddam Islamic fundies, and supported by Iran?

Ah yes, and then we have those glorious intelligence services who couldnt' spot obvious forgeries of nuclear documents, and who tried to characterize a student's term paper as "top secret" intelligence from reliable sources on the ground in Iraq- and gave the President all the rope he needed to hang himself with by having him meticulously detail all of Iraq's supposed WMD- except that they left out it was all hypotheticals and they haven't found a fucking drop.

And btw, if you stand by your intelligence services, then you must agree with the CIA that there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. QED.

And in addition, fuck you- just because I challenge your moron assertions without a shred of supporting evidence doesn't mean I 'stand by' Saddam.

If we differ on these basic facts, all I can see is that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this...

Probably as you look over at my name, you see "newbie" there. I am still trying to get the tone of this board. Being new, I emulated the behavior of people who post.

The example you set is one of sophomopric name-calling. You demand the posting of URLs for any statement you disagree with, yet I have yet to see you post one on any of your Anti-American claptrap...

You know the stuff, "Bush is a moron" "Americans have no culture" "Saddam knew nothing" and the like.

Now I havn't called you on any of this because in the course of my reading, I have probably read the piece you are slavishly repeating. I have (no doubt mistakenly) tentatively accepted your word as to what you claim as fact, depending on your intellectual integrity to help along a minor conversational thread.

While you claim my style to be that of a "Moron" you don't understand that you have indicted your own style. Let me narrow this down for you. You are a closed-minded little pseudo-sophist who wants to hide behind proceedural rules rather than cut to the issues like an adult. You are a loudmouthed little shikepoke whose main debating tools are the argumentum ad hominem, the appeal to (supposed) authority, and the fallacy of repetition. You are a frightened little fool. You don't want to understand the other side of the argument, you just want to shout the other fellow into submission.

You have the morals of a spoiled nine year old, and the maturity to match.

Just so you are sure to know you've been insulted, put an appropriate remark about your Mother right here.

Politics *does* get heated sometimes. It doesn't *have* to because people of good conscience disagree. The hashing out of political matters is for *grownups*, and if you can't do any better than you have been doing, I suggest you have Mum change your nappies and put you to bed until your attitude improves. Five years ought to do it.

Lee3 wrote:Probably as you look over at my name, you see "newbie" there. I am still trying to get the tone of this board. Being new, I emulated the behavior of people who post.

The example you set is one of sophomopric name-calling.

Welcome to SD.net, idiot. If you don't like it, leave.

You demand the posting of URLs for any statement you disagree with, yet I have yet to see you post one on any of your Anti-American claptrap...

Oooh, I'm 'anti-American' now.

You know the stuff, "Bush is a moron" "Americans have no culture" "Saddam knew nothing" and the like.

Hey, look, a bunch of moron strawmen! Surely you can do better

Now I havn't called you on any of this because in the course of my reading, I have probably read the piece you are slavishly repeating. I have (no doubt mistakenly) tentatively accepted your word as to what you claim as fact, depending on your intellectual integrity to help along a minor conversational thread.

The very fact that you think the undisputed fact of not finding any WMD in Iraq despite Bush's public proclamations of thousands of litres of the stuff and an 'active nuclear weapons program' needs 'calling on' speaks volumes of your pitiful knowledge base.

While you claim my style to be that of a "Moron" you don't understand that you have indicted your own style. Let me narrow this down for you. You are a closed-minded little pseudo-sophist who wants to hide behind proceedural rules rather than cut to the issues like an adult.

Funny, I'm not the one making unsupported bullshit claims without backing them up, and hiding behind pathetic style-over-substance fallacies to cover up the fact that I don't have an argument. Unlike you.

You are a loudmouthed little shikepoke whose main debating tools are the argumentum ad hominem

Look, the pretentious tit is using latin! Learn the rules of logic, you ignorant hatfucker- if the insult is the *whole* of the argument, then it's an adhominem. If I argue with you and call you an asslicking spastic on top of that, it's not an ad hominem. Dumbass.

the appeal to (supposed) authority

Funny, please point out where I appealed to any authority, you intellectual pygmy.

and the fallacy of repetition.

Riiight.

You are a frightened little fool.

Funny, I'm not the one making unsupported claims and refusing to back them up.

You don't want to understand the other side of the argument, you just want to shout the other fellow into submission.

Shouting? I'm shouting now?

You have the morals of a spoiled nine year old, and the maturity to match.

Hello style over substance fallacy.

Just so you are sure to know you've been insulted, put an appropriate remark about your Mother right here.

Eat me, moron.

Politics *does* get heated sometimes. It doesn't *have* to because people of good conscience disagree. The hashing out of political matters is for *grownups*, and if you can't do any better than you have been doing, I suggest you have Mum change your nappies and put you to bed until your attitude improves. Five years ought to do it.

Lee

Yes yes that's all very well and good. Luckily, your pathetic non-debate on this thread is open for all to see.

1: You have failed to present any evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, as you pathetically attempted to insinuate.
2: You pretend France 'stabbed America in the back'
3: You didn't back up your assertion that American involvement in Bosnia was France's doing
4: You seem to be living in some sort of fantasy land that WMD have actually been found in Iraq.

Iraq: a guy we dont like is ruling and killing fewer people than many us supported governments in the past.

If you cant tell the difference Lee, you need better reading glasses

So everything’s off until a certain number of people have been killed, at which point the international community must become involved? Bullshit. Your attempts to apologize for everyone and everything anti-American are absolutely horrific. The level of your desire to justify your own embarrassment for your nation’s mediocrity is absolutely stunning. You, sir, are a craven asshat.

LOL. So you're making the claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, are you? The burden of proof is on YOU, dumbass, not me. You're the one pretending there's a link. Saddam was not 'up this neck' in a islamic fundamentalist organization that hated him.

The gist of Lee’s argument is correct, Vympel. Saddam Hussein did make strong attempts to foster a working relationship with al-Qaeda prior to 2001 – namely by authorizing Iraqi security agents to seek al-Qaeda in the Sudan. Not to mention that his ties to HAMAS and Hizbollah – which almost certainly didn’t end with his defeat in 1991 – are a source of indirect comfort to Bin Laden. Remember that hundreds of young men from both organizations already sympathized with al-Qaeda’s strong anti-Western approach. Now, TIME Magazine has offered an article detailing their attempts to contact remnants of that same group in Afghanistan. The possibility that Iraqi training, money, or information could have empowered these murderers was very great.

What knife in the back?!

Chirac rallied the United Nations – which never became involved anyway – to prohibit and block the war by any and all means necessary; largely to preserve an illegal trading partner.

front of the nation and lied his ass off- either that, or the people giving him his information are grossly incompetent.

See: South Africa, 1979.

Ah yes, and then we have those glorious intelligence services who couldnt' spot obvious forgeries of nuclear documents, and who tried to characterize a student's term paper as "top secret" intelligence from reliable sources on the ground in Iraq- and gave the President all the rope he needed to hang himself with by having him meticulously detail all of Iraq's supposed WMD- except that they left out it was all hypotheticals and they haven't found a fucking drop.

You also decline to consider something Marina brought up. A “Soviet-style” program in Iraq by which electronic data was sent to Hussein detailing the programs when in actuality no solid evidence did exist. Trumped-up charges are all anyone could have made from any point of view. It was however still dangerous enough to justify action. Sometimes, foreign policy must be made “from the hip.” It’s not desirable but it does happen.

Another question … If France, Russia, and Germany had never begun to protest, would you have supported the Second Gulf War?

I don't have to read arabic or see the training camps or the mass graves to know that the whole region is rotten with terrorist groups. As you stand by Saddam, I stand by my President, and our intelligence services.

Wow! No one here has ever stood by Saddam Hussein. However, if you make an outrageous claim that Saddam was up to his neck in al-qaeda agents then we're gonna call you to task and want to see your sources.

Wow! No one here has ever stood by Saddam Hussein. However, if you make an outrageous claim that Saddam was up to his neck in al-qaeda agents then we're gonna call you to task and want to see your sources.

CNN confirmed it. Saddam Hussein was attempting to consolidate a close working relationship with al-Qaeda via a representative from the Sudan.

As for Lee, I think he refers to Napoleon's constant, craven attempts to justify anti-American senitment or opinion in every shape and form no matter what. Claiming that Hussein did not commit genocide is absolutely ridiculous. The man might not have been supremely successful, but that doesn't mean he at times targeted Jews, Kurds, or Shiites for elimination.

Axis Kast wrote:The gist of Lee’s argument is correct, Vympel. Saddam Hussein did make strong attempts to foster a working relationship with al-Qaeda prior to 2001 – namely by authorizing Iraqi security agents to seek al-Qaeda in the Sudan.

Not only has this not been prodded by a ten foot pole by any intelligence service, but where's the link to 9/11? Oh that's right- there is none.

CNN confirmed it

Source.

Not to mention that his ties to HAMAS and Hizbollah – which almost certainly didn’t end with his defeat in 1991 – are a source of indirect comfort to Bin Laden. Remember that hundreds of young men from both organizations already sympathized with al-Qaeda’s strong anti-Western approach. Now, TIME Magazine has offered an article detailing their attempts to contact remnants of that same group in Afghanistan. The possibility that Iraqi training, money, or information could have empowered these murderers was very great.

You've been beating that ridiculous Palestine=Al-Qaeda=9/11 drum for quite a while, and your pet theory to turn Israel's problems into America's problems doesn't have a shred of factual support.

I repeat- can you establish Iraqi responisbility for 9/11?

Chirac rallied the United Nations – which never became involved anyway – to prohibit and block the war by any and all means necessary; largely to preserve an illegal trading partner.

The majority of the Security Council was dead against it for their own reasons- no French 'rallying' was required.

See: South Africa, 1979.

Bush made very specific claims about Iraqi WMD- and not a single one of them have been found. Furhtermore, the administration has already begun changing its rhetoric to cover its ass- saying it's 'unlikely' that they'll find any 'smoking guns'. One team has already gone home in defeat, and all the major 'hot spot' sites have turned up nothing.

You also decline to consider something Marina brought up. A “Soviet-style” program in Iraq by which electronic data was sent to Hussein detailing the programs when in actuality no solid evidence did exist. Trumped-up charges are all anyone could have made from any point of view. It was however still dangerous enough to justify action. Sometimes, foreign policy must be made “from the hip.” It’s not desirable but it does happen.

I don't get what you're trying to say? Falsifying charges of clear and present danger to the United States (obviously not the case) was all they could've done?

Another question … If France, Russia, and Germany had never begun to protest, would you have supported the Second Gulf War?

Axis Kast wrote:Claiming that Hussein did not commit genocide is absolutely ridiculous. The man might not have been supremely successful, but that doesn't mean he at times targeted Jews, Kurds, or Shiites for elimination.

No, claiming he did commit genocide is ridiculous.

Oh come on. Not everyone is as stupid as commentators would like to believe. The man's a tinpot war criminal, not genocidal. He had from 1979-91 to commit genocide against any group in Iraq he wanted to; instead, he gassed Kurdish insurgents in one town, and then, in the aftermath of Desert Storm, brutally put down a Shi'ite rebellion (the source of the mass graves). Where's the people he targeted for elimination?

Not only has this not been prodded by a ten foot pole by any intelligence service, but where's the link to 9/11? Oh that's right- there is none.

What link to September 11th? At what point did I make discussion of the World Trade Center bombings a lynchpin of my argument? Your response is a red herring. Establishing a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda does not necessarily – or even remotely – rely upon proving Iraqi complicity in that attack. The crux of the issue is that prior to Bush’s call for invasion, Hussein was seeking to consolidate a working relationship with Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network.

I might also take the time to point out that the “chain link” theory by which you deny Saddam’s guilt in providing succor to al-Qaeda through the argument of self-defense is riddled with holes. It’s one thing to argue that one should have expected Saddam to turn to Osama for help in his final days. It’s another to ignore the fact that if he did indeed call on al-Qaeda at this point in time, he might have done so in the future with far better – from his point of view – results. Bush was not wrong to pursue all possible avenues of Saddam’s guilt – specifically because foreign policy must sometimes be based on preemptive expectation.

You've been beating that ridiculous Palestine=Al-Qaeda=9/11 drum for quite a while, and your pet theory to turn Israel's problems into America's problems doesn't have a shred of factual support.

I repeat- can you establish Iraqi responisbility for 9/11?

No. I’ve been beating that Palestine = al-Qaeda drum for quite a while now. Not that Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t both partially responsible for 11 September – along with Saudi Arabia and Iran – as a result of their having given al-Qaeda either safehouses or information in the past.

Of course it has factual support. The latest issue of TIME Magazine reports that HAMAS and Hizbollah were recruiting among al-Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan shortly after the American invasion. “Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001” confirmed that Iraq was still supporting Palestinian terrorism. That means Palestinians trained on Iraqi resources could be helping further the goals of Osama Bin Laden.

If you wait for facts all your life, Vympel, rather than making educated guesses, you’ll be a victim of history and nothing more.

The majority of the Security Council was dead against it for their own reasons- no French 'rallying' was required.

Bullshit. The French added spine and legitimacy. Bush might have dodged Russian or Chinese objection; they’re easily tarred as “Red.” Franco-German criticism – supposedly that of allies – wasn’t so easy to shake.

Bush made very specific claims about Iraqi WMD- and not a single one of them have been found. Furhtermore, the administration has already begun changing its rhetoric to cover its ass- saying it's 'unlikely' that they'll find any 'smoking guns'. One team has already gone home in defeat, and all the major 'hot spot' sites have turned up nothing.

It doesn’t make Bush’s proclamations utterly false.

I don't get what you're trying to say? Falsifying charges of clear and present danger to the United States (obviously not the case) was all they could've done?

Saddam Hussein might have himself been fed data by underlings in various communications intercepted by the United States. Thus, without actual physical proof, we might have captured passable evidence of illicit and threatening activity – all without knowledge that this was part of an elaborate ruse to siphon money in the old Soviet style directly from the Baath Party itself.

Oh come on. Not everyone is as stupid as commentators would like to believe. The man's a tinpot war criminal, not genocidal. He had from 1979-91 to commit genocide against any group in Iraq he wanted to; instead, he gassed Kurdish insurgents in one town, and then, in the aftermath of Desert Storm, brutally put down a Shi'ite rebellion (the source of the mass graves). Where's the people he targeted for elimination.

We're not talking about the difference between successful and unsuccessful but the difference between genocide and otherwise. The man did try to liquidate Kurds and Jews.

Axis Kast wrote:What link to September 11th? At what point did I make discussion of the World Trade Center bombings a lynchpin of my argument? Your response is a red herring. Establishing a connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda does not necessarily – or even remotely – rely upon proving Iraqi complicity in that attack. The crux of the issue is that prior to Bush’s call for invasion, Hussein was seeking to consolidate a working relationship with Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network.

In case you didn't notice, that's what we're talking about.

I might also take the time to point out that the “chain link” theory by which you deny Saddam’s guilt in providing succor to al-Qaeda through the argument of self-defense is riddled with holes. It’s one thing to argue that one should have expected Saddam to turn to Osama for help in his final days. It’s another to ignore the fact that if he did indeed call on al-Qaeda at this point in time, he might have done so in the future with far better – from his point of view – results. Bush was not wrong to pursue all possible avenues of Saddam’s guilt – specifically because foreign policy must sometimes be based on preemptive expectation.

Saddam's guilt is irrelevant. Whether the war was a good or bad thing motivates my stance. On which we differ, since you don't care about what happens to the Iraqis.

No. I’ve been beating that Palestine = al-Qaeda drum for quite a while now. Not that Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t both partially responsible for 11 September – along with Saudi Arabia and Iran – as a result of their having given al-Qaeda either safehouses or information in the past.

Even if your curious Palestine=Al-Qaeda theory was factual, you do realize that Iraq has now gone from secular dictatorship shithole to theocratic shithole? You know the Shi'ite clerics hold more authority with the Iraqi people than American forces do? The continued protests for the US to get out? The ever-mounting US casualties (up by 50 since the 'statue went down')? The reports that Al-Qaeda has been strengthened, not weakened, by this adventure? The shitty state of Iraqi infrastructure, including disease, hunger, lack of electricity, etc? Do you get a grasp of why I was against the war now?

Of course it has factual support. The latest issue of TIME Magazine reports that HAMAS and Hizbollah were recruiting among al-Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan shortly after the American invasion. “Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2001” confirmed that Iraq was still supporting Palestinian terrorism. That means Palestinians trained on Iraqi resources could be helping further the goals of Osama Bin Laden.

If you wait for facts all your life, Vympel, rather than making educated guesses, you’ll be a victim of history and nothing more.

Let's follow this train wreck of logic: Al-Qaeda attacks America. America attacks Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (Misses completely, overthrows Taliban instead. Installs ineffectual puppet leader with no authority. Country dissends into anarchy. Taliban still around.) *Assertion* made that Palestinian terrorists recruit from al-Qaeda remnants from Afghanistan. *Assertion* made that Iraq supported Palestinian terrorists (unsupported, unless you count money given to familes of dead bombers- which by the way aren't expensive). Thereofore, Iraq supports Al-Qaeda.

Bullshit? So you think everyone else on the security council just said: "oh look, France and Germany are bucking them, let's follow them!" Riiiighhhttt. I never saw I'd see the day when uber-realpolitik Axis Kast pretends that other nation's don't have their own interests.

It doesn’t make Bush’s proclamations utterly false.

Of course it does. Until they are found, they are utterly false, and Bush is either a craven liar, or is given information by incompetents- the Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's recently established pet intelligence service whom the CIA and NSA despise, who interpreted information the way that Rumsfeld wanted (unlike the CIA, who talked straight and said what they thought) and who sucked the cock of the Iraqi National Congress, because they told them what they wanted to hear- see a report in the New Yorker, by Hersh, IIRC.

Saddam Hussein might have himself been fed data by underlings in various communications intercepted by the United States. Thus, without actual physical proof, we might have captured passable evidence of illicit and threatening activity – all without knowledge that this was part of an elaborate ruse to siphon money in the old Soviet style directly from the Baath Party itself.

Axis Kast wrote:We're not talking about the difference between successful and unsuccessful but the difference between genocide and otherwise. The man did try to liquidate Kurds and Jews.

No tried to liquidate Jews? Eh?

There is a difference between brutally putting down a rebellion and genocide, Kast. If Saddam had gassed major Kurd population centres repeatedly, which was certianly within his capability to do in 1988, he would've done so.